Cover not available

Article published In: Register Studies
Vol. 2:1 (2020) ► pp.131–165

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Language variation in university classrooms

A corpus-driven geographical perspective

 | San Diego State University
 | National University of Singapore
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18002.cso
Abstract
Corpus-based university classroom discourse studies found differences in teaching as it relates to language use: discourse organization, levels of instruction and interactivity, and disciplinary differences in participant talk. These practices were primarily reported on US-based classrooms, while scholars with different foci looked at British university classrooms as well. However, a comparison of how discourse is organized in university classrooms in varying geographical contexts is still missing. The present study provides lexico-grammatical analyses of classroom discourse at a South-East Asian university as associations are made to the communicative and pedagogical functions in the discourse structure of lectures, and comparisons are made to a corpus of university classroom discourse from the US. Findings show differences in language use and associated discourse organizational patterns within three disciplinary areas (Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Engineering) as they are delivered in the two geographical contexts. Implications are discussed for register, disciplinary, and discourse structure studies.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The structure of university classroom discourse
    • 2.2Corpus analyses of university classroom discourse structure
      • 2.2.1Automatic segmentation of texts into smaller units for corpus studies
    • 2.3A multi-dimensional analysis of North American university classroom discourse
      • 2.3.1Situational characteristics of university classrooms (Phase 1)
      • 2.3.2Dimensions of linguistic variation in university class sessions (Phases 2 and 3)
    • 2.4Goal of this study
  • 3.Analytical procedures
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2Preparing the files for linguistic analyses
    • 3.3Discourse units
    • 3.4Multi-dimensional analysis of university classroom discourse
    • 3.5Summary of analytical steps
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Humanities
    • 4.2Natural sciences
    • 4.3Engineering
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • 6.Implications and limitations
  • Notes
  • References
References (37)
References
Allison, D., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse organisation on lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 157–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alsop, S. & Nesi, H. (2014). The pragmatic annotation of a corpus of academic lectures. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Language resources evaluation conference proceedings (pp. 1560–1563). Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H. (2007). Signalling the relationship between ideas in academic speaking: From language description to pedagogy. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 22(2), 61–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). University language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (Eds.) (1994). Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 361, 9–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Cortes, V., Csomay, E., & Urzua, A. (2004). Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus (TOEFL Monograph series [MS-26]). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Csomay, E., Jones, J. K., & Keck, C. (2004). A corpus linguistic investigation of vocabulary-based discourse units in university registers. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 53–72). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., U. Connor, E. Csomay, J. K. Jones, C. Keck, & T. Upton. (2007). Introduction to the identification and analysis of vocabulary based discourse units. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. (pp. 155–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csomay, E. (2002). Variation in academic lectures: interactivity and level of instruction. In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. (pp. 203–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15(3), 243–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Academic talk in American university classrooms: Crossing the boundaries of oral – literate discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 117–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Vocabulary-based discourse units in university class sessions. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton, Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 213–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 34(3): 369–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2011). A corpus-based study of lecture functions. Moderna Sprak, 105(2), 1–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hearst, M. A. (1994). Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository texts ( Technical Report 94/790 ). Berkeley, CA: Computer Science Division (EECS), University of California. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). TextTiling: Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 33–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2004). Lexical priming and the properties of text. In A. Partington, J. Morely, & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp. 386–412). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (Ed.). (1994). Sociolinguistic perspectives. Papers on language in society 1959–1994. Charles A. Ferguson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines. (pp. 17–45). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1972). Toward ethnographies of communication. In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (pp. 21–44). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesi, H. (2001). A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In J. Cotterill, & A. E. Ife (Eds.), Language across boundaries: Selected papers from the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics held at Anglia Polytechnic University (pp. 201–218). Cambridge, September 2000.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M., & Hoey, M. (2012). Exploring text-initial words, clusters and congrams. In E. Csomay (Ed.), Discourse and corpora. Special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 73–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. H. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9(1), 33–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, S. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 5–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, P., & Nesi, H. (2001). The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus project. Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 263–264.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Youmans, G. (1991). A new tool for discourse analysis: The Vocabulary Management Profile. Language, 671, 763–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Young, L. (1994). University lectures – macro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Csomay, Eniko
2024. Editor’s note. International Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Research and Practice 4:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Csomay, Eniko, Reka R. Jablonkai & Siew Mei Wu
2024. A Corpus-Based Multidimensional Analysis of EMI University Classroom Discourse. In Researching English Medium Instruction, ► pp. 240 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Wei
2024. Lexical bundles in TED talks: Topical variations and pedagogical implications. International Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Research and Practice 4:1 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Xiaoli
2022. A multi-dimensional analysis of English-medium massive open online courses (MOOCs) video lectures in China. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 55 ► pp. 101079 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Empirical Chapters (Case Studies). In Researching English Medium Instruction, ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue